At the time the ceasefire between the United States and Iran was concluded, Israel launched an unprecedented wave of strikes in Lebanon, as if the truce did not apply to this front. Negotiated without Tel Aviv, this agreement questions both the Israeli maneuvering room and its degree of dependence on Washington, as the army is engaged on several fronts and facing increasing constraints. In this context, what consequences can this truce have on the Israeli offensive?
Israel facing the multiplication of military fronts
The ceasefire concluded between the United States and Iran is a “variable geometry” with an “American version” and an “Iranian version”, with the main difference being “the inclusion or exclusion of Israel in the ceasefire,” explains Amélie Fréy. While Tehran believes it also implies a halt to Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory, Israel claims the ceasefire only concerns the Iranian front and continues its offensive with the strategic objective of “creating a buffer zone” in southern Lebanon. But the strikes go beyond this defensive logic: the operation “Eternal Darkness,” marked by “a hundred strikes in about ten minutes,” illustrates Israel’s willingness to strike massively and rapidly, including deep into Lebanon and up to Beirut.
This military intensification also responds to a logic of reduced strategic window: with the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran, Israel believes it has little time to permanently weaken Hezbollah before a potential regional diplomatic rebalancing. But behind the military logic also appears an internal political calculation. As elections approach, Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to show that he has been able to “address the threat of Hezbollah” and significantly reduce the capacities of its regional enemies, in a context where several fronts remain open and the results obtained remain incomplete. According to Amélie Fréy, Netanyahu’s objective is to be able to defend the narrative of a leader who has imposed “a new Middle Eastern order” and loosened the Iranian grip, while the opposition criticizes a strategy of permanent warfare without a true political horizon.
A military power weakened by the absence of a political solution
Despite Israel’s technological superiority, the multiplication of fronts is beginning to weigh heavily on the army. Simultaneously engaged in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, facing Iran and the Houthis, it is facing increasing human and logistical pressure. The chief of staff has acknowledged that the Israeli army, designed for “short and decisive wars,” is not structured to sustain multiple long-term conflicts. This military overload is accompanied by increasing fatigue in the Israeli population, exhausted by alerts, missile strikes, and the lack of a clear perspective, nurturing a diffuse sense of not knowing where Israel is headed.
While the military capabilities of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have been “extremely reduced,” this tactical efficiency is not enough to produce a lasting strategic victory. For Amélie Fréy, recent events show that “military objectives, when limited, are within the reach of armies,” but that “a military objective can never become a political objective.” In the absence of a structured diplomatic project, military successes risk losing their meaning and gradually delegitimizing the use of force. Since October 2023, Israel appears to be locked in a logic where military response dominates without being able to open a true political solution, illustrating the limits of a strategy based almost exclusively on military power.
Context: The article discusses the implications of the ceasefire between the United States and Iran on Israel’s military operations in Lebanon and the broader Middle East region.
Fact Check: The content accurately reports on Israel’s military actions, the impact of the ceasefire on its operations, and the challenges faced by its armed forces in sustaining multiple conflicts.
